An improperly used tool can break. That danger now faces Trump’s antitrust agenda, thanks to a misguided investigation launched under Biden. This misguided attack on American companies, which an interim antitrust chief carried out in January of this year, was just before Trump’s nominee, Gail Slater, was confirmed. But now, fully in charge, this administration can correct the course and avoid serious negative consequences.
The Trump antitrust team’s “big is bad” mantra hits the mark. As a general rule, when a company reaches dominant size in an industry—whether in tech, banking, or pharmaceuticals—that behemoth deserves skeptical scrutiny. This approach prioritizes the interests of workers, small businesses, and national sovereignty.
However, this acting official rushed into court with a case that could do more harm than good. Moreover, this weak case could well hand President Trump a loss in court, which could set bad precedents that allow predatory monopolies to evade proper scrutiny going forward.
As a Breitbart News news story made clear, the case in question — which involves the merger of two telecom companies, HPE and Juniper — is not about stopping a monopoly. It’s about stopping two benign companies from teaming up to compete against Huawei, a company that the Department of Defense has labeled it a Chinese military company and whose products are banned in the United States for posing a national security threat.
For this reason, serious MAGA national security leaders support the deal. These patriotic leaders don’t want China to continue dominating the global telecom marketplace at the expense of America’s national security interests.
This case should never have been filed. However, now that President Trump’s team is fully in charge, it should be dropped before its early July trial date to restore the proper focus on Trump’s vision for antitrust enforcement. After all, the Trump agenda, in favor of small enterprises and U.S. national security, comprises a foundational pillar of the America First economic agenda.
Antitrust law is a powerful tool. It is important for those of us who have the political right to recognize that big businesses often work against the interests of true free enterprise in America. They naturally seek monopoly powers and advocate for aggressive rent-seeking privileges because of their heft and serious political power. But thankfully, since Teddy Roosevelt’s day, antitrust has protected Americans from abusive corporate power.
Section 7 of the 1914 Clayton Act gave the government authority to block anti-competitive mergers before they happen. In 1963, the Supreme Court reinforced that power in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (PNB), a landmark ruling that lets antitrust cops presume a merger is illegal if it creates a firm with more than 30% market share and significantly increases concentration in a given market.
That precedent has stood for over 60 years, and it’s a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s strategy to rein in corporate excess.
But the HPE-Juniper merger doesn’t come close to meeting that standard. A different American company, Cisco, dominates the U.S. market today with over 50%. HPE holds about 15%, and Juniper just 5%. Merged, HPE-Juniper would still only reach 20%, well below the PNB threshold. And that’s just the domestic picture. Globally, China’s Huawei controls more than 30% of the telecom equipment market, while Cisco — America’s largest player — only has around 6%. HPE and Juniper barely chart globally.
For all these reasons, the DOJ’s current case is weak and likely to be dismissed.
As George Mason University Law Professor Thomas Stratmann put it:
If the DOJ pushes the boundaries of Section 7 to cover modest mergers like the HPE-Juniper case, which cannot even meet the PNB threshold, it could invite backlash from the courts. That could result in a ruling that narrows Section 7 authority. This could be problematic for the Trump administration’s aggressive plans to rein in real economic threats, as was outlined in Assistant Attorney Slater’s April 28 ‘The Conservative Roots of America First Antitrust Enforcement’ and FTC Commissioner Mark Meador’s May 1 ‘Antitrust Policy for the Conservative’ doctrinal addresses.
Big Tech and Big Pharma are constantly eyeing smaller companies to swallow up before they become competitors. Section 7 and the PNB precedent help stop predatory behavior before they lock in monopoly power. If the courts use this weak case to gut the standard and weaken the DOJ and FTC’s enforcement authority, future antitrust actions will be far harder to win.
So this isn’t just a bad lawsuit—it’s a dangerous one. It plays right into China’s hands by making it harder for American telecom firms to stand up to Huawei. It also plays into the hands of corporate elites who’d love to see Trump’s populist economic agenda fail in court.
Luckily, there’s still time to correct the course. The trial doesn’t begin until early July. Dropping this case would protect these federal monopoly protections, preserve America First enforcement power, and prevent a totally avoidable courtroom loss for President Trump. More importantly, it would show that President Trump’s team is focused on real threats to competition, not phantom ones.
The Trump administration should act now before a bad case guts a good law, weakens our defensive posture against China, and hands a victory to the very monopolists we’re trying to stop.
Steve Cortes is president of the League of American Workers, a populist right pro-laborer advocacy group, and senior political advisor to Catholic Vote. He is a former senior advisor to President Trump and JD Vance, plus a former commentator for Fox News and CNN.